IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sat, 18 July 2009 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E244E3A684E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:13:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.988
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.611, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5FSJJX4FKjqc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3DCB3A67A1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1MSEV2-0006RP-Q4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:19:08 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([193.51.208.68]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1MSEU1-0006Cv-NR for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:18:05 +0000
Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]) by maggie.w3.org with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1MSETs-0002aZ-QI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:18:05 +0000
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2009 18:17:25 -0000
Received: from p508FE471.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO [192.168.178.33]) [80.143.228.113] by mail.gmx.net (mp022) with SMTP; 18 Jul 2009 20:17:25 +0200
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+8GE1C2Ji8aBUHPc1spdNZuoJjaPdKmkG1CXEMUR sqtw3mSMJgbRvZ
Message-ID: <4A6211AC.3080707@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 20:17:16 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
CC: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <48037FF9.9030103@gmx.de> <48049274.3090501@gmx.de> <4A61B8B7.7030200@gmx.de> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB843B4F@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <4A61F5C2.3050906@gmx.de> <20090718175918.GA3899@mercury.ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090718175918.GA3899@mercury.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.65
Received-SPF: pass
X-SPF-Guess: pass
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-2.599, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1MSETs-0002aZ-QI ce987614102a31a66697712c91df6e11
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue 113 (language tag matching (Accept-Language) vs RFC4647), was: Proposed resolution for Issue 13 (language tags)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/4A6211AC.3080707@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/7124
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1MSEV2-0006RP-Q4@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 18:19:08 +0000

John Cowan wrote:
> Julian Reschke scripsit:
> 
>> The intention was to normatively refer to that matching algorithm that 
>> actually is equivalent to what RFC2616 used to define (remember, we're 
>> not changing the protocol here). Did we pick the wrong one?
> 
> No, basic filtering is the RFC 2616 algorithm all right.  You might
> consider allowing HTTP servers to do lookup if basic filtering
> produces no results: Apache already does this.
> 
> Is there some reason why you aren't referring to BCP 47?

The spec does refer to BCP 47: 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-ietf-httpbis-p3-payload-07.html#RFC4647>.

BR, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email